Gabe Newell: Linux is the future of gaming, new hardware coming soon

Valve chief blasts PC market, promises big news is coming next week.

Gabe Newell, the co-founder and managing director of Valve, said today that Linux is the future of gaming despite its current minuscule share of the market.

That seems hard to believe, given that Newell acknowledged Linux gaming generally accounts for less than one percent of the market by any measure including players, player minutes, and revenue. But Valve is going to do its best to make sure Linux becomes the future of gaming by extending its Steam distribution platform to hardware designed for living rooms.

Newell made his comments while delivering a keynote at LinuxCon in New Orleans. "It feels a little bit funny coming here and telling you guys that Linux and open source are the future of gaming," Newell said. "It's sort of like going to Rome and teaching Catholicism to the pope."

Valve brought Steam to Linux in February, and the platform now has 198 games. Newell has previously promised to unveil a Linux-based "Steam box" to compete against living room gaming consoles sometime this year, and his company has updated the Steam software to work better on TVs. While he didn't specifically mention the Steam box today, Newell hinted at an announcement next week.

"Next week we're going to be rolling out more information about how we get there and what are the hardware opportunities we see for bringing Linux into the living room," Newell said.

Getting games to work on Linux has its challenges. If not implemented right, "Just compile it yourself" could be the inconvenient solution to the problem of installing games and applying updates, he said. However, Valve worked through these problems in bringing Left 4 Dead 2 to Linux, hopefully showing the way to other developers, he said.

Bringing Steam to Linux "was a signal for our development partners that we really were serious about this Linux thing we were talking about," Newell said.

Besides just releasing Steam on Linux-based operating systems, Valve is contributing to the LLDB debugger project and is co-developing an additional debugger for Linux, Newell said.

"When we talk to developers and say, 'if you can pick one thing for Valve to work on the tools side to make Linux a better development target,' they always say we should build a debugger," he said.

Newell has previously complained about Windows 8 being a "catastrophe for everyone in the PC space," and he reiterated these concerns today. Closed platforms are going to lose to open ones that allow innovation, he said. But that won't stop Steam's rise: Despite year-over-year declines in the PC market, Steam has seen a 76 percent increase in its own sales according to Newell.

"I think we'll see either significant restructuring or market exits by top five PC players. It's looking pretty grim," he said. "Systems which are innovation-friendly and embrace openness are going to have a greater competitive advantage to closed or tightly regulated systems."

The biggest thing for me at this point is my backlog of Windows titles. If were to integrate Wine in such a way that games unlikely to ever see a direct Linux port (i.e. older titles) could be installed and run transparently via Steam, I'd probably move over pretty quickly as that's really the only thing keeping me on Windows at this point.

It shouldn't be hard to use Bay Trail paired with a powerful GPU to match the PS4/XB1 in terms of price/performance but use Linux instead.

The question is if anyone will buy a $300 to $400 console with only a handful of games; see Wii U as an example.

198 games is "only a handful"?

You must have extremely large hands. Do you use a tablet as a phone?

And why use a Bay Trail CPU to beat a PS4/XB1 when you can get a similar AMD APU (with or without the graphics card) for the same price and performance?

The number of games is less relevant than the number of quality games. 200 indie games that won't spark much interest outside of a small group is less useful than 10 big budget games that will drive the numbers needed to increase adoption.

Undisputed fact: Future software written for Windows 8 is required to use the Metro API, and the Desktop is considered a "legacy" option for all the "Dinosaurs". They (Microsoft) communicate this themselves.

Undisputed horseshit.

Thanks for setting the high intellektual standard Ars is so famous for.

I understand now. It is all clear. Your awesome contribution and argumentation is truly life-changing.

I capitulate. Thank you for sharing your wisdom.

- Jesper

His comment was about as intellectual as your garbage deserved, possibly more.

Tell you what, you point to me a piece of software that windows will not let you install that you could have installed previously and maybe you will have the beginning of a point.

Fair warning, for an opponent that is classifying Linux devices for the purpose of this conversation about Linux PCs to include routers and Android devices, asking them to identify a piece of software that could be installed on old Windows but not now is like throwing a surprise sexy party.

Tell you what, you point to me a piece of software that windows will not let you install that you could have installed previously and maybe you will have the beginning of a point.

Fair warning, for an opponent that is classifying Linux devices for the purpose of this conversation about Linux PCs to include routers and Android devices, asking them to identify a piece of software that could be installed on old Windows but not now is like throwing a surprise sexy party.

I had a feeling I was going to get some old piece of windows software that stopped working 15 years ago, but I figured since I previously had established I was talking about compatible software I was in the clear.

I did enjoy the "Routers use linux!" argument, it really speaks to his credibility.

1) People don't have to know what an .iso is or how to create one. They go into Steam on their existing Windows box, and press a button that says "Make SteamOS". Steam tells them to plug in a USB stick and select it from a list. Steam automatically downloads the iso and installs it on the stick.

Why? Why would they do that? That's the fundamental question, and one I haven't seen an answer that seems much more than wishful thinking.

...

Again, we're in agreement that a small nice may enjoy this. Why would anybody else. It's the fundamental problem with the argument for Linux-- why?

I'll assume you're asking why a user would want to use SteamOS, rather than why Valve would make it simple to create a SteamOS USB stick. I don't think there is a single reason that will suddenly switch the majority of the Windows user base to SteamOS, but there are a variety of reasons why some people might prefer it, or at least be willing to try it if it's simple enough.

One is that many people go to consoles because they struggle with technical problems on PC. While some of these problems are due to hardware compatibility or capability issues, my experience with reading game tech support forums seems to indicate that many of them, perhaps a fairly large majority, result from software issues such as out of date drivers or background processes like virus scanners, etc. A well-defined software platform running from a USB stick image could potentially reduce many of these problems.

I previously mentioned the possibility of improved performance.

Neither of these is a "killer app", but to start with they don't need to convert everyone, they just need to get enough people familiar with the concept so it doesn't seem foreign and scary. At that point they could potentially release one of their games as a SteamOS exclusive (or release on SteamOS a few weeks before opening it up to run on other operating systems).

Again, the point is not necessarily to make everyone immediately switch to SteamOS for all their gaming, but rather to get more people familiar with it. Some percentage of those people who try it might like it (particularly those with crudded-up Windows installs, who might notice a significant performance increase). This gives game devs more reason to support Linux, which is what Valve needs to do if they want to reduce their dependence on MS.

It seems that we both agree that Valve has reasons to want to be less dependent on MS. The remaining question is how can they achieve that? It requires getting other game devs on board, and that requires getting Linux-based gaming systems into the hands of more users. Pre-built SteamBox hardware and/or easy to use SteamOS boot sticks are a couple of ways of attempting that, and it's up to Valve to figure out how to make it appealing to customers. Maybe they'll try some of the ideas I've thought of, or maybe they've thought of some better ones, but I hope they succeed.

I think becoming a platform is a dangerous move, one that threatens their game development side by risking it all on becoming a platform. Again, that means they are now in the crosshairs of Sony, MS, and Nintendo. Pushing Linux support is a great thing, for Valve, even if I believe that it doesn't solve a major problem. Pushing it by creating a Linux box that, by nature, is going to cause disruptions to Linux development, doesn't seem the best way to do this.

I can (and DO!) support Linux game development by Valve and others. I just realize that for all of the "yay open source" rhetoric, this is a business play, and a lot of people are taking his comments as truth, rather than marketing. The larger problem, and what I think goes against that message, is the Steambox.

To me, SteamBox or SteamOS seem like very good ways of pushing Linux support, as long as they're designed to be relatively compatible with other Linux distros (as opposed to going in a completely different direction with the userspace stack, like Android did). If SteamOS is just an Ubuntu derivative with some unneccessary stuff stripped out, and the ability to start Steam big picture mode as a stand-alone session from the login screen rather than running it inside Unity or another desktop environment, they could make something that helps increase the Linux user base significantly without being too disruptive to general game development for Linux.

As I see it, not becoming a platform is a dangerous move, because it puts them at the mercy of whatever platform vendor they build on top of, and these days it seems like all of the platform vendors are trying to become vertically integrated (and thus becoming competitors to Steam). Having a platform built on a base that is broadly compatible with standard desktop Linux distros positions them to survive in a vertically integrated market, while still having a mutually beneficial relationship with the open source community.

I see no reason for them to discontinue Steam on Ubuntu just because they release SteamOS, and lots of reasons for them to maintain as much compatibility. Their biggest challenge is convincing game devs to build for Linux, and a bigger install base is the best tool they have for achieving that. Fragmenting the already small Linux gaming market by making SteamOS incompatible with Steam on Ubuntu would be an idiotic move, and I hope they are not idiots. Adding the existing Ubuntu user base plus any Windows gamers they can convince to try SteamOS, plus anyone who buys a SteamBox is their best hope of establishing a big enough user base to be viable.

Linux fans keep positing the same hypothetical scenarios to solve a problem that does not exist and only exists in another hypothetical future in which a dozen inconceivable decisions must be made to bring about.Everyone else just keeps trying to get the Linux fans to explain why those hypotheticals are valid.

Nobody ever asked me if I *wanted* to move my gaming experience into the living room. Many things factor into my choice to game on the PC, and a large one is the fact that I have a wife, a teenager, and a dog.. going into my office, shutting the door, and getting my game on is a freaking sanctuary for me. IMO Gabe needs to stop chasing consoles and keep doing what he does well.

Well, if you've created an app you want to install, you can sideload the ModernUI app. More difficult than desktop apps, but still possible. There are likely less official ways to get this done, however I'm not going to link to them.

It's more of an academic concern as I doubt your hostility with Windows 8 and Microsoft in general has anything to do with your desire to install ModernUI apps.

The issue here is about the possibility of moving to a fully closed ecosystem. We're not there yet. Concern is fine. Bullshit is unnecessary.

From your own link:

Quote:

However if you are an Enterprise looking to get Metro applications onto your employees/students or lab Windows 8 desktops then you will likely want to do it more directly.

In brief: App must be cryptographically signed App can only be installed on a computer that trusts the signing certificate Group Policy must have the Allow all trusted applications to install setting. Computer must be domain joined to run the app (not needed for install)

This is not a practical solution if you want to sell a Metro application to consumers outside the Windows Store. Nobody is arguing with you about the ability to distribute desktop apps, this is all about Metro apps, and the fact that MS provides no consumer-friendly way to distribute them outside the Windows Store.

If someone can point me to something that explains a consumer-friendly way of distributing Metro apps without going through the Windows Store, I'll gladly concede the point, but so far, everyone seems to be responding with "but you can still distribute desktop apps", which is arguing against a straw man because nobody every claimed you couldn't. In case I haven't repeated this enough: This is about Metro apps, not desktop apps

Whether or not MS ever hopes/plans to discontinue support for desktop apps is a different matter. Personally I doubt they would ever discontinue desktop support entirely, but I could easily see them trying to push it into an "enterprise only" type of scenario at some point in the future, similar to the way they allow sideloading of Metro in enterprise scenarios. The point is that killing it completely would probably cause a huge backlash, but gradually making it less accessible to consumers to push the consumer market toward Metro seems like the direction that MS is trying to move in.

This is not a practical solution if you want to sell a Metro application to consumers outside the Windows Store. Nobody is arguing with you about the ability to distribute desktop apps, this is all about Metro apps, and the fact that MS provides no consumer-friendly way to distribute them outside the Windows Store.

If someone can point me to something that explains a consumer-friendly way of distributing Metro apps without going through the Windows Store, I'll gladly concede the point, but so far, everyone seems to be responding with "but you can still distribute desktop apps", which is arguing against a straw man because nobody every claimed you couldn't. In case I haven't repeated this enough: This is about Metro apps, not desktop apps

Whether or not MS ever hopes/plans to discontinue support for desktop apps is a different matter. Personally I doubt they would ever discontinue desktop support entirely, but I could easily see them trying to push it into an "enterprise only" type of scenario at some point in the future, similar to the way they allow sideloading of Metro in enterprise scenarios. The point is that killing it completely would probably cause a huge backlash, but gradually making it less accessible to consumers to push the consumer market toward Metro seems like the direction that MS is trying to move in.[/quote]

Let's say there is a big open field that measures 10,000' by 10,000'. Anyone can build anything they want in there. the owner of the field buys the lot next door. There, they build another field, only this one has walls around it. The original field is still 10,000 by 10,000, but the new field has some nice amenities that make is more accessible for some people.

What has been taken away from the original field by building the new one?

A) People are arguing that windows is closed and is not going to let you install apps outside of their storeB) Side loading is not difficult. If you need that "Metro" app

This is not a practical solution if you want to sell a Metro application to consumers outside the Windows Store. Nobody is arguing with you about the ability to distribute desktop apps, this is all about Metro apps, and the fact that MS provides no consumer-friendly way to distribute them outside the Windows Store.

If someone can point me to something that explains a consumer-friendly way of distributing Metro apps without going through the Windows Store, I'll gladly concede the point, but so far, everyone seems to be responding with "but you can still distribute desktop apps", which is arguing against a straw man because nobody every claimed you couldn't. In case I haven't repeated this enough: This is about Metro apps, not desktop apps

Whether or not MS ever hopes/plans to discontinue support for desktop apps is a different matter. Personally I doubt they would ever discontinue desktop support entirely, but I could easily see them trying to push it into an "enterprise only" type of scenario at some point in the future, similar to the way they allow sideloading of Metro in enterprise scenarios. The point is that killing it completely would probably cause a huge backlash, but gradually making it less accessible to consumers to push the consumer market toward Metro seems like the direction that MS is trying to move in.

Let's say there is a big open field that measures 10,000' by 10,000'. Anyone can build anything they want in there. the owner of the field buys the lot next door. There, they build another field, only this one has walls around it. The original field is still 10,000 by 10,000, but the new field has some nice amenities that make is more accessible for some people.

What has been taken away from the original field by building the new one?

A) People are arguing that windows is closed and is not going to let you install apps outside of their storeB) Side loading is not difficult. If you need that "Metro" app

Linux fans keep positing the same hypothetical scenarios to solve a problem that does not exist and only exists in another hypothetical future in which a dozen inconceivable decisions must be made to bring about.Everyone else just keeps trying to get the Linux fans to explain why those hypotheticals are valid.

Repeat.

And that's the people being a modicum of reasonable.

It seems to me that this thread is mostly full of Windows fans who think the status quo is just fine, and PC gaming should remain a primarily Windows-exclusive market for the indefinite future. The Linux fans are just expressing their reasons for not liking the status quo, and discussing various strategies for altering the status quo.

I don't want game developers to stop supporting Windows, I just don't want the PC game market to be tied to one single platform, and I'd like to see more games on Linux. It seems like there are a bunch of Windows fans who just love to attack any suggestion of broadening platform support in the game industry, and I don't really understand the negativity.

The Linux fans are just expressing their reasons for not liking the status quo, and discussing various strategies for altering the status quo.

That seems unlikely because the status and existence of Metro apps has zero impact on Linux fans.I only bring up Metro apps because there is apparently some confusion in that there is the idea that Metro apps are remotely relevant to this discussion.

Linux fans keep positing the same hypothetical scenarios to solve a problem that does not exist and only exists in another hypothetical future in which a dozen inconceivable decisions must be made to bring about.Everyone else just keeps trying to get the Linux fans to explain why those hypotheticals are valid.

Repeat.

And that's the people being a modicum of reasonable.

It seems to me that this thread is mostly full of Windows fans who think the status quo is just fine, and PC gaming should remain a primarily Windows-exclusive market for the indefinite future. The Linux fans are just expressing their reasons for not liking the status quo, and discussing various strategies for altering the status quo.

It isn't. I run osx and (wait for it...) linux primarily, and only use windows for gaming.

Quote:

I don't want game developers to stop supporting Windows, I just don't want the PC game market to be tied to one single platform, and I'd like to see more games on Linux. It seems like there are a bunch of Windows fans who just love to attack any suggestion of broadening platform support in the game industry, and I don't really understand the negativity.

Attacking the suggestion <> Asking for an explanation. No one championing Linux as a gaming platform has been able to articulate why developers or users would migrate to it.

As I see it, the problem isn't even about articulating why anyone would migrate to it. I disagree with those, as they're generally steeped in more ideology than technical reasonings, but I find the rationale interesting.

The problem is specific reasons provided that are not grounded in reality, but presented as fact. I don't mind concern and fearmongering as long as it's presented as "what could be" versus the reality of a stable, decent platform that requires very few non-ideological concessions.

Define a platform as what you want to see in the future and move towards it. Telling people that what works for them doesn't, in fact, work for them* (versus what you want) is not the best way to convert anyone to your way of thinking.

*This goes the same for people telling Linux gamers that all their hardware support is borked. Some nuance would help.

Let's say there is a big open field that measures 10,000' by 10,000'. Anyone can build anything they want in there. the owner of the field buys the lot next door. There, they build another field, only this one has walls around it. The original field is still 10,000 by 10,000, but the new field has some nice amenities that make is more accessible for some people.

What has been taken away from the original field by building the new one?

A) People are arguing that windows is closed and is not going to let you install apps outside of their storeB) Side loading is not difficult. If you need that "Metro" app

I think the concern is that (to continue with the field analogy) MS is investing most of their resources into improving and promoting the new walled field, and may stop maintaining the old field, and let it get overgrown so people don't use it as much, and then eventually restrict access to it as well (once usage is low enough to avoid a backlash).

I've seen people arguing that you can't (easily) install Metro apps outside the Windows Store, and I've seen people worrying that MS might eventually discontinue or deprecate support for desktop, but I haven't seen anyone claiming that Windows currently (in Win8) blocks desktop Windows apps from being distributed outside the store. Could you point out a specific post that claims this, because from my reading of the thread it seems like you're misinterpreting the claims that you're arguing against, and (perhaps unintentionally) hitting a strawman instead?

Side-loading may not be difficult, but "Computer must be domain joined to run the app" may be a problem for a lot of home users. My home Windows install isn't joined to a domain, and I suspect most home users are the same. Making a SteamOS boot disk would be easier.

Tell you what, you point to me a piece of software that windows will not let you install that you could have installed previously and maybe you will have the beginning of a point.

Fair warning, for an opponent that is classifying Linux devices for the purpose of this conversation about Linux PCs to include routers and Android devices, asking them to identify a piece of software that could be installed on old Windows but not now is like throwing a surprise sexy party.

I had a feeling I was going to get some old piece of windows software that stopped working 15 years ago, but I figured since I previously had established I was talking about compatible software I was in the clear.

I did enjoy the "Routers use linux!" argument, it really speaks to his credibility.

You have me confused with someone else. I am a windows-dev who works with Microsoft SQL Server and Dynamics applications. I have made absolutely no claim about Linux running or not running on devices/routers.

Tell you what, you point to me a piece of software that windows will not let you install that you could have installed previously and maybe you will have the beginning of a point.

That is not what I argued.

What I have said is, that Microsoft has monopolized the defacto distribution channel for Metro apps. So if any game vendor wants to distribute games as Metro Apps (future verions of Plants vs Zombies are a good example) they Steam and Origin won't be an option. Also I have made the claim that Microsoft wants a cut of all Net Revenue made from any app distributed through the Windows Store, essentially making the business model for Steam, Origin, iTunes, Kindle, etc. impossible if they want to distribute their stores as native Metro apps.

I have not claimed that existing apps/games did not work or could not be installed.

Tell you what, you point to me a piece of software that windows will not let you install that you could have installed previously and maybe you will have the beginning of a point.

That is not what I argued.

What I have said is, that Microsoft has monopolized the defacto distribution channel for Metro apps. So if any game vendor wants to distribute games as Metro Apps (future verions of Plants vs Zombies are a good example) they Steam and Origin won't be an option. Also I have made the claim that Microsoft wants a cut of all Net Revenue made from any app distributed through the Windows Store, essentially making the business model for Steam, Origin, iTunes, Kindle, etc. impossible if they want to distribute their stores as native Metro apps.

I have not claimed that existing apps/games did not work or could not be installed.

- Jesper

That claim has been supported. When you say things are "undisputed facts" that are not true, that is what we in the business call a lie.

Maybe that isn't what you are arguing, but it is what you were arguing against. If I say "You can install any piece of compatible software you want on Windows 8", and you say, "No, you can't," you are arguing that I am wrong, even if you didn't specifically spell it out.

I believe Sideloading requires the Windows client to be part of an Active Directory domain, which means that it only works for Windows Pro and Windows Enterprise - in a network with a running domain controller.

That is hardly true for gamers or normal consumers, so it really doesn't help much.

It also is developed for Line of Business applications (like ERP and CRM systems) so there is no guarantee it will provide a working solution for software using stuff like DirectX and OpenGL.

That claim has been supported. When you say things are "undisputed facts" that are not true, that is what we in the business call a lie.

Maybe that isn't what you are arguing, but it is what you were arguing against. If I say "You can install any piece of compatible software you want on Windows 8", and you say, "No, you can't," you are arguing that I am wrong, even if you didn't specifically spell it out.

I am not sure I follow you, so for the sake or argument, please spell it out for me.

I made these specific claims:

- Microsoft wants to move everything in the direction of Metro. They communicate this themselves.- Future software written for Windows 8 is required to use the Metro API, and the Desktop is considered a "legacy" option for all the "Dinosaurs". They (Microsoft) communicate this themselves.- Native Metro Apps are, for now, only distributed through the Windows Store. This is documented in the numerous terms and licenses associated with the Store.- The Store specifically prohibits distribution of any non-Metro App which does not use the new APIs, and which does not give Microsoft 20%-30% of all revenue.

I believe Sideloading requires the Windows client to be part of an Active Directory domain, which means that it only works for Windows Pro and Windows Enterprise - in a network with a running domain controller.

That is hardly true for gamers or normal consumers, so it really doesn't help much.

It also is developed for Line of Business applications (like ERP and CRM systems) so there is no guarantee it will provide a working solution for software using stuff like DirectX and OpenGL.

- Jesper

Edit: Correction: Sideloading only works with Windows Enterprise, which is not available through normal sales channels. It is available only through an Enterprise Agreement (Volume Licensing).

But really, this has very little to do with the core argument. We agree that ModernUI is not good for your average user installing whatever app they want outside of the store. We're not suggesting that ModernUI is or will become the future of gaming. These workarounds, while possible, are not worth defending. We're discussing the viability of the current Windows platform, which remains unimpeded by Microsoft's push for App Store apps. It might replace your average VB-based or Java crap app and provide benefits in easy publishing on Xbox One and WinPhone whatever, but It's just not going to replace the need for high performance games, compiled from C++.

As I see it, the problem isn't even about articulating why anyone would migrate to it. I disagree with those, as they're generally steeped in more ideology than technical reasonings, but I find the rationale interesting.

The problem is specific reasons provided that are not grounded in reality, but presented as fact. I don't mind concern and fearmongering as long as it's presented as "what could be" versus the reality of a stable, decent platform that requires very few non-ideological concessions.

Define a platform as what you want to see in the future and move towards it. Telling people that what works for them doesn't, in fact, work for them* (versus what you want) is not the best way to convert anyone to your way of thinking.

*This goes the same for people telling Linux gamers that all their hardware support is borked. Some nuance would help.

I would say that from a technical perspective, Windows, Linux and OSX are all capable of being good gaming operating systems, and the non-technological (market, ideological, etc) are the main things that distinguish them.

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about OSX, but my limited understanding is that one thing that holds it back in terms of gaming (aside from developer support) is that Apple's Mac hardware lineup isn't really gaming-oriented, and often doesn't get refreshed as frequently as hard-core gamers would like, and OSX isn't available on non-Apple hardware (not counting hackintosh). This isn't a technical problem with the OS, but rather a problem of market decisions (which may well be the "right" decisions for Apple's profits) getting in the way of gamers.

For a long time, Windows has been the dominant desktop OS, and they were generally viewed as a fairly neutral party. While they did dominate the Office market, and they had some internal game studios, they didn't really do anything to restrict their competitors, so nobody complained. Now they are starting to implement more restrictions.

Since the iPhone was released, it seems like many aspects of consumer computing are shifting to more appliance-like devices rather than PCs, and PCs are beginning to borrow some concepts from these more locked-down appliance-devices. This trend is very much "grounded in reality", and it's very troubling to some of us. How far it will go is still very speculative, but it doesn't seem out-of-line to me to look at existing trends and extrapolate what might happen in the future.

Does Windows work well for gaming right now, today? Sure. I'm not saying it doesn't, and I don't think anyone else is either. Some of us are just concerned about the future, and don't like the idea of one company being the gatekeeper of "PC gaming". Maybe we're wrong about this being a problem, and MS will continue being a benevolent, neutral platform provider until the end of the universe, or maybe we're the canaries in the coal mine who noticed a real problem before it killed the gaming industry, only time will tell. The thing is, even if we're wrong, a multi-platform game industry isn't a bad thing, and doesn't harm Windows gamers at all, so I don't understand why so many people seem to be against it. Rather than asking "why should developers make games for non-Windows platforms?", I would ask "Why shouldn't developers make their games run on as many platforms as possible?"

As I see it, Linux platform developers (whether it's Valve, or Canonical, or someone else) who want to make it a viable gaming platform need to make it as easy as possible for...

A) ...game devs to make cross-platform games. Game developers aren't going to abandon Windows overnight, and Linux is likely to be a fairly small bit of the market for at least the near future. The cost of porting to Linux needs to be small enough that even this small market is worth catering to, or it's not going to happen.

and

B) ...Windows users to use Linux without needing to switch to it as their primary desktop OS. SteamBox and/or SteamOS (booting from a USB key, or running as a VM within Windows) are possible ways of achieving this. SteamBox has the advantage of having a known software and hardware configuration, but the disadvantage of requiring gamers to buy new (relatively high end) hardware. SteamOS could give you a known software configuration that could run on PC gamers' existing hardware.

Actually, if Steam for Windows could seamlessly launch a SteamOS VM and run Linux games in it, then developers could target the Linux-based SteamBox console, and have their games automatically work in Steam on Windows. Right now, some Linux users run Windows in a VM, but that requires actually buying a Windows license. Doing it the other way (Linux in a VM on Windows) would not require the Windows gamer to buy anything.

"Undisputed fact: Future software written for Windows 8 is required to use the Metro API, and the Desktop is considered a "legacy" option for all the "Dinosaurs". They (Microsoft) communicate this themselves."

Anybody can write future software for the desktop, at any time. Saying that "future" software must be written for the Windows RunTime is disingenuous at best. You still haven't provided links, that I can see, that demonstrate that Microsoft has said that they consider the desktop to be a "legacy" application, or that they intend to restrict it. This is another claim that you have made without substantiation that people think demonstrate a pattern of obtuse language choice or intentional deception on your part.

In short: you're coming off as incredibly deceptive, even if you're not intentionally doing so. Your behavior, however, suggests that it is intentional, and that you are tilting at windmills that you constructed yourself.

One rarely does see a straw-windmill though, so by all means, don't let our arguments dissuade you from continuing the point you believe you're making effectively.

Again, no argument there Kasoroth. While I disagree with the viability of some of these ideas (GPU performance in abstracted hardware, why the user would need to game in virtualized Linux when the games are also available on PC), I appreciate the constructive brainstorming.

- Future software written for Windows 8 is required to use the Metro API

This is where you need to stop lying. Seriously, it doesn't help whatever point you're trying to make.

If you mean the APP STORE say the APP STORE. Otherwise you're lying through omission.

I am really sorry, but you are flat out wrong. I am not "lying", and Microsoft has directly stated that this is the direction they want developers to go.

At the Build conference in Sept. 2011 (in California; i did not attend) Microsoft put forth their vision for the future of Windows software. I have no idea if there are still videos online from that conference, but here are some highlights for you:

- The first class is the "modern, immersive applications" which we now call "Metro" but which are really called "Windows store apps" and which are built with "Microsoft design lanuage". They are developed using C, C++, C#, Visual Basic, HTML5, JavaScript, and XAML.

- The second class is called "Desktop" applications and they are the type of applications we normally just call a "Windows applications" - things like Paintshop Pro, Steam, and classic business applications (LOB). Nothing will change for them, and the full .NET framework will continue to be the preferred developing platform.

- Windows 8 is announced as a "no compromise" platform, and Microsoft makes it very clear that Metro-style apps are the future. This means that future development efforts are placed here, and that "Desktop" (read: "legacy") is officially a dead end kept for backwards compatibility only. They would have skipped it if they could. The involved APIs and presentation layer will be used across all platforms driven by Microsoft (which we now know includes Windows 8, Phones, Tablets and the X-Box).

---

Now, you can call me a liar all you want, but the fact is that I am simply citing what Microsoft have communicated themselves. And their representatives - especially in the development space - have repeated these things many times over.

I really don't think you should run around calling people "liars" just because you disagree with them. A bit of Google-fu would have been all you needed to discover this for yourself.

- Windows 8 is announced as a "no compromise" platform, and Microsoft makes it very clear that Metro-style apps are the future. This means that future development efforts are placed here, and that "Desktop" (read: "legacy") is officially a dead end kept for backwards compatibility only. They would have skipped it if they could. The involved APIs and presentation layer will be used across all platforms driven by Microsoft (which we now know includes Windows 8, Phones, Tablets and the X-Box).

Then post the actual statement from Microsoft. With all your "google-fu" apparently you lack the ability to find any citations whatsoever.

Your sole point of authority and reliability lies on a set of (non-transcript) misquotes from a convention you didn't attend.

Again, no argument there Kasoroth. While I disagree with the viability of some of these ideas (GPU performance in abstracted hardware, why the user would need to game in virtualized Linux when the games are also available on PC), I appreciate the constructive brainstorming.

I guess I just tend to consider technical problems "easier" to solve than market/ideological ones. Improved performance of virtual machines seems more likely to happen than convincing the majority of gamers to suddenly ditch Windows completely and go to Linux.

Currently, if you're using a GNU/Linux distribution, you've already chosen the platform for reasons other than gaming. Mostly the advantages aren't about availability of game titles. If your number one must have feature is availability of gaming titles you're not currently going to be served well by using Linux. That's not to say that a more casual gamer can't be happy on Linux even with limited title availability.

Again, if you're looking for an advantage while your number one priority is title availability, you're not going to find that advantage. What's the advantage if availability sucks? It's kind of a loaded question because you've eliminated all but one possible answer by insisting on the satisfaction of that one metric.

But I will give it to you. Title availability is a big thing in gaming if you're anything above the lower end of "casual gamer."

At least that's the current state of affairs. But Gabe Newell (who acknowledged the current situation in his speech, btw) is talking about the future and how he hopes things will change and where he sees Valve going. If all you want to talk about is how things are right now this current second, you might as well close this tab because it's not for you.

I think it's a bit silly to assert that Steam's current 198 games for Linux is the end that it cannot ever go beyond.

No need to be a prick about it. If you want to talk about a future, show me how you are going to get people to Linux, as that is what Gabe is unable to do. It is pretty simple...

-People won't go to Linux for gaming until their are many good games there, or else there is no reason to switch from Windows.-Developers won't spend the time/money to put their good games on Linux because there are not enough people using it.

Solve for X (without having people dual-boot for absolutely no reason), or you might as well close this tab because you are living in a dream world.

Who's being a prick?

What you're basically saying is that it's impossible for new markets to emerge because of the dominance of an existing one. Be careful, you might start a conversation about why monopolies are bad.

At any rate developers have been porting software to Linux despite the lack of customer mass for a long time. Part of the reason for that is that in many cases they don't have to spend a significant amount of "time/money" to do it. They're already porting to many platforms and the cost of adding another is relatively inexpensive. I don't buy that the cost investment is an extreme barrier never to be passed when it's already being done by some despite the lack of customer mass.

The chicken/egg argument never has been a good one. It implies that neither chickens or eggs (Linux or Linux consumers) can exist. But chickens and eggs sure as hell do exist despite the paradox created by ignoring the evolutionary process that got them there. It focuses exclusively on the current state in which chickens and eggs come from each other in their fully evolved state as if there were never anything that could have started the process.

The chicken/egg paradox only exists because of a simplistic, limited, exploration of where chickens and eggs come from.

Fifteen years ago Linux was a hobby OS and would never be anything more than that. Or so said many. The future was hard to predict back then and it still is today. So forgive me if I take your absolute certainty about the future with a grain of salt.

Currently, if you're using a GNU/Linux distribution, you've already chosen the platform for reasons other than gaming. Mostly the advantages aren't about availability of game titles. If your number one must have feature is availability of gaming titles you're not currently going to be served well by using Linux. That's not to say that a more casual gamer can't be happy on Linux even with limited title availability.

Again, if you're looking for an advantage while your number one priority is title availability, you're not going to find that advantage. What's the advantage if availability sucks? It's kind of a loaded question because you've eliminated all but one possible answer by insisting on the satisfaction of that one metric.

But I will give it to you. Title availability is a big thing in gaming if you're anything above the lower end of "casual gamer."

At least that's the current state of affairs. But Gabe Newell (who acknowledged the current situation in his speech, btw) is talking about the future and how he hopes things will change and where he sees Valve going. If all you want to talk about is how things are right now this current second, you might as well close this tab because it's not for you.

I think it's a bit silly to assert that Steam's current 198 games for Linux is the end that it cannot ever go beyond.

No need to be a prick about it. If you want to talk about a future, show me how you are going to get people to Linux, as that is what Gabe is unable to do. It is pretty simple...

-People won't go to Linux for gaming until their are many good games there, or else there is no reason to switch from Windows.-Developers won't spend the time/money to put their good games on Linux because there are not enough people using it.

Solve for X (without having people dual-boot for absolutely no reason), or you might as well close this tab because you are living in a dream world.

Who's being a prick?

What you're basically saying is that it's impossible for new markets to emerge because of the dominance of an existing one. Be careful, you might start a conversation about why monopolies are bad.

At any rate developers have been porting software to Linux despite the lack of customer mass for a long time. Part of the reason for that is that in many cases they don't have to spend a significant amount of "time/money" to do it. They're already porting to many platforms and the cost of adding another is relatively inexpensive. I don't buy that the cost investment is an extreme barrier never to be passed when it's already being done by some despite the lack of customer mass.

The chicken/egg argument never has been a good one. It implies that neither chickens or eggs (Linux or Linux consumers) can exist. But chickens and eggs sure as hell do exist despite the paradox created by ignoring the evolutionary process that got them there. It focuses exclusively on the current state in which chickens and eggs come from each other in their fully evolved state as if there were never anything that could have started the process.

The chicken/egg paradox only exists because of a simplistic, limited, exploration of where chickens and eggs come from.

Fifteen years ago Linux was a hobby OS and would never be anything more than that. Or so said many. The future was hard to predict back then and it still is today. So forgive me if I take your absolute certainty about the future with a grain of salt.

I would say, "If all you want to talk about is how things are right now this current second, you might as well close this tab because it's not for you" is a bit prickish, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm simply asking how. No one has been able to even give an idea of how this is going to happen, except for comparing a relatively tiny amount developers creating software for linux to a major gaming developer deciding on a whim to invest insane amounts of money on an incredibly small market.

I'm asking you, since you seem to be pretty confident that this is entirely possible, how?I don't see how it is going to happen, so I asked you. No certainty implied. Take all the salt you want.

By the way, the comment you originally replied to where I didn't see the advantage was someone saying that Steam could make you a boot usb so you can boot into linux to play a game that is already available on windows. I stand by my statement, I don't see the point.

My apologies. I haven't tried it myself; and my initial memory was "Pro+Enterprise" before following up. My information comes from the following article from TechNet, which is Microsofts official source for a Sideloading tutorial:

Use a Sideloading Product KeyEarlier in this article, we listed the requirements for sideloading Windows Store apps. The computer must be running Windows 8 Enterprise. It must be joined to the domain, and you must enable the policy setting “Allow all trusted apps to install.” This is great if in a typical enterprise scenario where you use the Enterprise editions and join computers to the domain. What about increasingly common Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) scenarios, where Windows RT devices and computers running Windows 8 Pro are more common; and devices are not always joined to the domain?Easy.

You can enable sideloading for these additional scenarios by installing a sideloading product key on the computers.

It is not impossible for an official Microsoft-article to be wrong off course. As I said, I haven't tested it. But as I understand it, the Sideloading product key referred here, is a component only available through Volume Licensing. So even though this technically can work on a "Pro" licensed Windows machine, you will still require a key issued by a company with a valid Enterprise Agreement.

In any case, Sideloading doesn't work for ordinary consumers so I really don't understand why you think this tiny detail is so important. Consumers don't have neither Pro or Enterprise, they don't have access to Sideloading product keys, and they don't have a running AD controller on their home network.

But really, this has very little to do with the core argument. We agree that ModernUI is not good for your average user installing whatever app they want outside of the store. We're not suggesting that ModernUI is or will become the future of gaming. These workarounds, while possible, are not worth defending. We're discussing the viability of the current Windows platform, which remains unimpeded by Microsoft's push for App Store apps. It might replace your average VB-based or Java crap app and provide benefits in easy publishing on Xbox One and WinPhone whatever, but It's just not going to replace the need for high performance games, compiled from C++.

Over time that may change. But even now, many games which would make sense as Windows Store apps (Metro apps) are available for sale in Steam. Most of them are casualgames like Plants vs Zombies, World of Goo, and so on - but they would make great games on a decent Windows tablet. And the main point is, that if a game publisher starts making their next release as a Windows Store app, they can't distribute it through Steam. They will need to "port it" to a "Desktop application".

I am really sorry, but you are flat out wrong. I am not "lying", and Microsoft has directly stated that this is the direction they want developers to go.

Okay, let's see how this goes...

Quote:

At the Build conference in Sept. 2011 (in California; i did not attend) Microsoft put forth their vision for the future of Windows software. I have no idea if there are still videos online from that conference, but here are some highlights for you:

Okay, so you're operating off of memory of videos you may have seen, but let's see how you actually present that info...

Okay, first sentence in, you've apparently inserted words into the mouths of others, because while you started off as saying they were two paths (which actually sounds like something they'd say), you're arbitrarily adding your own interpretation of that into the very loaded phrase "classes" which, unless you have documentary evidence to support your position, is an entirely disingenuous way of presenting what was said. YOU are calling them classes, and creating a division of ranking, not Microsoft.

You are taking your interpretation of what was said, applying disingenuous labeling to it, and presenting it as the position Microsoft actually took...

...and then you're tilting at the invented position (which even in your own, incoherent interpretation, is still not as evil as what you'd like us to believe).

I reiterate my earlier comment: you have managed the rare feat of tilting at straw windmills.

Over time that may change. But even now, many games which would make sense as Windows Store apps (Metro apps) are available for sale in Steam. Most of them are casualgames like Plants vs Zombies, World of Goo, and so on - but they would make great games on a decent Windows tablet. And the main point is, that if a game publisher starts making their next release as a Windows Store app, they can't distribute it through Steam. They will need to "port it" to a "Desktop application".

- Jesper

Well, it really depends on the framework you're talking about. For casual games, if you wanted to publish on both the App Store and Steam both you could develop in HTML5 and need no serious "porting" to any platform.

But, again, easy publisher adoption of Metro is irrelevant to the argument that Desktop apps are no more, a far greater concern.

"Undisputed fact: Future software written for Windows 8 is required to use the Metro API, and the Desktop is considered a "legacy" option for all the "Dinosaurs". They (Microsoft) communicate this themselves."

Anybody can write future software for the desktop, at any time. Saying that "future" software must be written for the Windows RunTime is disingenuous at best. You still haven't provided links, that I can see, that demonstrate that Microsoft has said that they consider the desktop to be a "legacy" application, or that they intend to restrict it. This is another claim that you have made without substantiation that people think demonstrate a pattern of obtuse language choice or intentional deception on your part.

This is the first constructive criticism. Thanks. But really, I still don't think people should call me a "liar" just because I haven't thrown links on the table. These things are well established things in Microsoft dev communities. But I will absolutely try to find links for you.

I also apologize for what you call "obtuse language". English is not my first language and my choice of words may very well be "off" in some way. I would really appreciate a PM (no need to bug everybody here) with a few tips and pointers to what constitutes "a pattern of obtuse language". Honestly and no BS. :-)

In short: you're coming off as incredibly deceptive, even if you're not intentionally doing so. Your behavior, however, suggests that it is intentional, and that you are tilting at windmills that you constructed yourself.

One rarely does see a straw-windmill though, so by all means, don't let our arguments dissuade you from continuing the point you believe you're making effectively.

Again, I am sorry that is the case. I assure you I am not trying to deceive anyone (and I actually am not quite sure why you would say that). I will take your feedback very seriously and try to improve my English.

I am not (intentionally) tilting at windmills ... I used to live in Greece and I promise you that debating here feels more like rolling a rock to the top of a hill ;-)

I am really sorry, but you are flat out wrong. I am not "lying", and Microsoft has directly stated that this is the direction they want developers to go.

Okay, let's see how this goes...

Quote:

At the Build conference in Sept. 2011 (in California; i did not attend) Microsoft put forth their vision for the future of Windows software. I have no idea if there are still videos online from that conference, but here are some highlights for you:

Okay, so you're operating off of memory of videos you may have seen, but let's see how you actually present that info...

Okay, first sentence in, you've apparently inserted words into the mouths of others, because while you started off as saying they were two paths (which actually sounds like something they'd say), you're arbitrarily adding your own interpretation of that into the very loaded phrase "classes" which, unless you have documentary evidence to support your position, is an entirely disingenuous way of presenting what was said. YOU are calling them classes, and creating a division of ranking, not Microsoft.

You are taking your interpretation of what was said, applying disingenuous labeling to it, and presenting it as the position Microsoft actually took...

...and then you're tilting at the invented position (which even in your own, incoherent interpretation, is still not as evil as what you'd like us to believe).

I reiterate my earlier comment: you have managed the rare feat of tilting at straw windmills.

You are just being so totally unfair. Really. :-( You're not even giving me the benefit of the doubt, you seem to have simply decided that everything I say is false or is deceptive. For example, the word "classes" is used by Microsoft and not a word I would normally choose in this context.

These things are well established things in Microsoft dev communities.

I think you'll find in your search that while MS has been promoting ModernUI as "the" thing to do and attempting to push development in that direction, they have not cut off any future development and support for Desktop apps as your specific claims have targeted. They are not deprecated.

Quote:

You're not even giving me the benefit of the doubt, you seem to have simply decided that everything I say is false or is deceptive

Because you're going beyond what is known to the point of absurdity. As you're making the extraordinary claim based on thirdhand knowledge, your word is not particularly reliable. Saying your beliefs are "Undeniable Fact" with the expectation that we trust you implicitly also hurts your credibility greatly.

As a suggestion: Find links that specifically support your claims with specific facts and not just any claims that reiterate what we already know. We know MSFT is attempting to promote the App Store and ModernUI. That is not in contention.